DINESH ENGINEERS LIMITED,NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3548/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dinesh Engineers Limited, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) that dismissed their appeal due to a delay in filing. The appellant had filed their return of income for the assessment year 2019-20, which was processed with various disallowances and additions. After an unsuccessful attempt to rectify the return, the appellant filed an appeal along with a delay condonation application, which was rejected by the CIT(A). The tribunal considered the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and the appellant's belief in rectification under section 154, leading to the decision to condone the delay and restore the appeal for reconsideration on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473408 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R. MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHAN SOGANI
• Keywords: Set aside; Bonafide belief
• Section: 250; 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3548/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2019–20) Dinesh Engineers Limited DEPL House Neighbourhood Shopping Complex, Nerul Sector-4, Navi Mumbai- 400706. Vs. DCIT Circle 15(1)(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. AACCD3117C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Rohan Sogani Revenue by Shri. R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.05.2024 passed in Appeal no. NFAC/2018- 19/10214752 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"] for the ITA no. 3548/MUM/2024 Dinesh Engineers Limited 2 Assessment year [A.Y.] 2019-20, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of delay condonation application. 2. The brief facts that give rise to the appeal state that appellant assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2019-20, declaring total income of Rs. 1,03,49,63,700/-. The ROI was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 13.06.2020 by CPC Bangalore, wherein various disallowances and additions amounting to Rs. 69,98,423/- were made. The assessee, after having failed in filing its rectification u/s. 154 of the Act on 12.12.2022, filed first appeal on 31.12.2020 along with delay condonation application, however learned CIT(A) was not satisfied by the assessee’s explanation and dismissed assessee’s first appeal upon rejection of delay condonation application. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, assessee filed this appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal merely on the ground of dismissal of assessee’s delay condonation application. 4. In response to the notice issued by the tribunal, learned DR appeared and participated in the hearing. 5. We have perused the records and heard learned representatives for both the parties. 6. Learned AR has submitted that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was condoned by the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Misc app. No. 21/2022 r/w suo moto w p No. 03/2020 after taking cognizance of outbreak of covid-19. The appellant was thus entitled to file ITA no. 3548/MUM/2024 Dinesh Engineers Limited 3 appeal within 90 days for 01.03.2022 but failed to do so. The appellant was under a bonafide belief that adjustment made u/s. 143(1) would be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act. Since the appellant failed to file rectification, due to technical glitches, it immediately took steps to file appeal and could file it only on 31.12.2020 by a delay of about 07 months. The delay is based on assessee’s bonafide intentions. Learned AR has prayed to condone the said delay caused in filing first appeal and to set aside the impugned order and direct learned CIT(A) to pass the order on merit afresh. 7. Learned DR has supported the impugned order. 8. It appears to us that assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(A) on 31.12.2020 against the intimation order dated 13.06.2020 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The substantial portion of delay from 13.06.2020 till 28.02.2022 gets condoned under the aforesaid Hon’ble Apex Court’s order. For the remaining period of delay, the assessee’s ground that it was under a bonafide belief that the adjustment made u/s. 143(1) would be rectified u/s. 154 of the Act, cannot be ignored. It is natural phenomenon that if a litigant can get relief from minimum efforts, it will try to avoid to resort to the larger expensive mode of adjudication. It appears that most of the period was occupied by the out break of global pandemic covid-19 disease. In the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it just and proper to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The delay is accordingly condoned. ITA no. 3548/MUM/2024 Dinesh Engineers Limited 4 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 14.05.2024 is set aside. The appeal is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 06.11.2024. Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 06/11/2024 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// "